WaPo: Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home
"
ANCHORAGE, Sept. 8 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.
The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.
Palin, who earns $125,000 a year, claimed and received $16,951 as her allowance, which officials say was permitted because her official "duty station" is Juneau, according to an analysis of her travel documents by The Washington Post.
The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel, and many of the trips were between their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show."
... and that's not change we can believe in. Such a Maverick... with taxpayer money. There must be another definition for "maverick" which means cattle rustler.
OMG. She is such a hypocrite. Her stump speeches today are just bold face lies. It's absolutley amazing. She needs to be called out on this stuff and I would also like to see some comercials pointing out the lies.
This should be 'recd!
September 9, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for this. I just emailed the article to over twenty people - some repubs - this is just the kind of spotlight we need.
Greatly appreciated and Rec'd.
September 9, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hehehe. Why do I have a feeling that Joe Biden doesn't like this article?
Jeesus, I'm so disappointed in "progressives". Can't even shoot straight, keep getting cluster bombs explode in their own faces.
September 9, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does it feel to be wrong about everything? Must be hard to take some days.
September 9, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I made plenty of predictions on this site. All of them came true, except for Hillary winning primaries. I can live with that.
September 9, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a single thing you have predicted has come true. You are consistently wrong about everything.
September 9, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that some states allow state legislators to get a per diem or daily rate for when they're in session, no matter where they live. When this has come up in the past, the argument has always been why should one person buy their own meals, when another person doesn't.
What strikes me as possibly different in this instance is that it's a Governor and only a few (NY, CA & IL) have chief executives who don't live in the mansion, so I'd be interested in what they do and because of the word "travel", I have to wonder if this was a wanky workaround.
Though, nonetheless from the WaPo story, she often wrote that she was staying at home and if someone approved the expenditure, then that'd be a matter of state law.
September 9, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
(I just posted the following to the similarly-themed story in the left-hand column and because in my initial comment over there, I reference this thread, I wanted to add my addendum below)
---
I can't find the wicked old story, where I first learned about per diem paid to locally-based legislators in the Raleigh News & Observer, eons and eons ago, but this 2005 story about NC legislators accepting per diem for days they were absent and its accompanying chart of local officeholders gets the point across.
I only offer North Carolina as an example because I know that the subject has come up periodically over the past couple of decades. I also know that the law is similar in most, if not all other places, so if we make too big a deal out of this without considering the consequences, we could be causing problems for a lot of congressional candidates, who used to sit in their state's legislatures.
September 9, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob wrote: "There must be another definition for "maverick" which means cattle rustler."
Looks like he is correct, except its not limited to cattle. These are entrees from the Oxford English Dictionary II on CD-ROM. They are explicitly identified as Western US definitions used about 100 years ago. In fact, these definitions are quoted from the dictionary they mention.
b. 'Western U.S. Anything dishonestly obtained, as a saddle, mine, or piece of land’ (Cent. Dict. 1890).
Hence
'maverick v.
(a) trans., ‘to seize or brand (an animal) as a maverick; hence, to take possession of without any legal claim; appropriate dishonestly or illegally’ (Cent. Dict.).
(b) intr., to stray or wander like a maverick.
September 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a segment on NPR a couple days ago about the origin of the word "maverick." It's the last name of a cattleman who refused to brand his cattle, saying he wouldn't do it because it was cruel. Other area cattlemen said he really just wanted to be able to claim all unbranded cattle as his own.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94312345
September 9, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Henrietta,
Thanks. The primary definition is the political independent, i.e., without a party "brand."
Apparently these other, more snarky definitions evolved over time. I doubt if they were made up.
September 10, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an important story... so here is the WaPo link in convenient emailable form:
http://tinyurl.com/64wlhh
Spread the word!
September 9, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter what else, charging per diem on THANKSGIVING, a FEDERAL HOLIDAY, usually requires extreme circumstances -- like you are in the field away from your family.
Anyone who has worked for the government, even as a consultant, knows how strict the rules are. I recognize that Federal rules differ from individual states, however, the state rules typically are in the same spirit as the Feds.
September 9, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't TPM or the O-team running with "per diem gate"?!?!?!? She might not have broken the law, but to have received a per diem for staying at home for more than half of the days she was governor is ridiculous! This is clearly not the intent of the law, and any true reform-minded governor would have modified it to deal with such situations. WaPo seems to have the sense to put it on their front page -- why not TPM (or TNR, or anyone else)??? What am I missing, guys???
September 9, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It fits a pattern of
a) abuse of power/stature
and
b) hypocrisy (she is running on a record of saving taxpayer's money) -- just like the pork issue
It is not a story in itself, but another paragraph on a story of her character and general political lying.
September 9, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink